Anyone take photos while on the train?

[Devil's Advocate]

I specifically and explicitly used the phrase “common area of the train” for that exact reason. We could probably have a vigorous debate about coach seats, most of the case law on expectations of privacy while aboard public transit centers around searches of police and luggage in overhead racks. Generally speaking, the courts have ruled that officers smelling or touching soft sided bags don’t violate an expectation of privacy, so a photo of something or someone in plain view at their seat is probably on the side of legal.

I'm not aware of any private party photography law which was determined by rulings on claims of unreasonable searching by an officer of the state. Photography law includes all sorts of exceptions for public figures, public safety, presumption of wrongdoing, accidental and incidental inclusion, unusual events, etc. But that's not the same thing as enjoying the rights and expectations of an enforcement official. I think the most reasonable advice we can give is that we don't know what would happen until someone formally challenges it, a judge or jury rules on it, the eventual conclusion reaches its final disposition, and someone knowledgeable of the repercussions reports upon it. That being the case it's probably best to ask permission, or keep your candid photos private, or blur out any easily identifiable faces before publishing photos taken aboard the train. If that's unacceptable I think we can all agree that station and platform areas are open season so have at it.

 

[Guest]

Please DO NOT take recognizable pictures of people anywhere without their permission, not in this modern world. It may be legal, but it is rude, inconsiderate, and could even be dangerous to someone (say a battered wife who has left her husband and he sees her picture and recognizes where the photo was taken?)

There is already no privacy anywhere now for decent people--please do not make it worse.

I never, ever want any stranger taking my picture, and I only want my friends doing it if they ask first. And no, I have nothing to hide--I just value my privacy highly.

Take as many pictures of as many trains as you want--most trains are more interesting and have more personality than many people, anyway.

As someone has said Street Photography has been around for decades now and judging by the responses here its still a hot button issue, some are okay with it some arent, but in the end if youre in a public area you have no expectation of privacy. Street photography is about documenting life around you. As for your example, people are gonna show up in photographs regardless, either intentional or not.

 

[PVD]

Court rulings have consistently come down on the side of the rights of photographers in what are considered public places, with narrow exceptions. At the same time, there are also many rulings that protect private parties from the commercial use of there image or likeness. Search and seizure by LEO is a whole different ball of wax.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

This may take care of itself.

If "Street photography is about documenting life around you," then you will end up with picture after picture of the same thing, because they will all be pictures of morons staring at their phones. There is no "life" as such anymore to photograph--just crowds of people addicted to their phones--so I would assume there will be no need to document it after about the 500th photograph of the same thing.

That's the main reason I said most trains have more personality than many people--a train has a life and a personality, the phone-addicted person does not.

My apologies to regular readers of my posts who are usually used to seeing me even-tempered and good-humored. This topic just brought up two of the things I detest the most: (1) being photographed without having a chance to get out of it, and (2) smartphones.

 

[the_traveler]

There is also the issue of “will these pictures be used publicly/commercially or just for your own private use/memories?

If commercially, you must obtain prior authorization from Amtrak. That is why you may see signs in casinos or restaurants that say something like

A film crew may be taking photos here today. If you are in this location, you give consent of your photo being used.

 

[Ryan]

I specifically and explicitly used the phrase “common area of the train” for that exact reason. We could probably have a vigorous debate about coach seats, most of the case law on expectations of privacy while aboard public transit centers around searches of police and luggage in overhead racks. Generally speaking, the courts have ruled that officers smelling or touching soft sided bags don’t violate an expectation of privacy, so a photo of something or someone in plain view at their seat is probably on the side of legal.

I'm not aware of any private party photography law which was determined by rulings on claims of unreasonable searching by an officer of the state.

They are a bit disconnected, my line of thinking was along the lines of where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

At the end of the day, you’re right. A judge and jury would have to decide it. Given the case law that is out there, it would be a huge sea change to system that someone on a public bus or train has a legal right to not be photographed.

 

[jis]

Clearly people on public transit property get photographed all the time by the surveillance cameras. I doubt that that will change in today's atmosphere.

NJTransit ran into trouble because they were recording audio too. That was discontinued after protests and court intervention. But challenges to surveillance video have generally not succeeded, while oddly enough in many jurisdictions traffic cameras have been discontinued.

At least Amtrak does not have surveillance cameras in the public areas of their trains yet.

However, merely photographing someone without their knowledge is a different thing from publishing such photos indiscriminately.

 

[cpotisch]

This may take care of itself.

If "Street photography is about documenting life around you," then you will end up with picture after picture of the same thing, because they will all be pictures of morons staring at their phones. There is no "life" as such anymore to photograph--just crowds of people addicted to their phones--so I would assume there will be no need to document it after about the 500th photograph of the same thing.

That's the main reason I said most trains have more personality than many people--a train has a life and a personality, the phone-addicted person does not.

My apologies to regular readers of my posts who are usually used to seeing me even-tempered and good-humored. This topic just brought up two of the things I detest the most: (1) being photographed without having a chance to get out of it, and (2) smartphones.

Wow. Well said.

 

[cpotisch]

Please DO NOT take recognizable pictures of people anywhere without their permission, not in this modern world. It may be legal, but it is rude, inconsiderate, and could even be dangerous to someone (say a battered wife who has left her husband and he sees her picture and recognizes where the photo was taken?)
There is already no privacy anywhere now for decent people--please do not make it worse.

I never, ever want any stranger taking my picture, and I only want my friends doing it if they ask first. And no, I have nothing to hide--I just value my privacy highly.

Take as many pictures of as many trains as you want--most trains are more interesting and have more personality than many people, anyway.

As someone has said Street Photography has been around for decades now and judging by the responses here its still a hot button issue, some are okay with it some arent, but in the end if youre in a public area you have no expectation of privacy. Street photography is about documenting life around you. As for your example, people are gonna show up in photographs regardless, either intentional or not.

At minimum, if you don't want to ask people for permission beforehand and "ruin the moment", ask the person(s) afterward if they're okay with you keeping the photo and posting it online. That way people will will be acting normal in the photo, but they'' still have the option to opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it. Do you feel that that's fair?

 

[jebr]

This may take care of itself.

If "Street photography is about documenting life around you," then you will end up with picture after picture of the same thing, because they will all be pictures of morons staring at their phones. There is no "life" as such anymore to photograph--just crowds of people addicted to their phones--so I would assume there will be no need to document it after about the 500th photograph of the same thing.

That's the main reason I said most trains have more personality than many people--a train has a life and a personality, the phone-addicted person does not.

My apologies to regular readers of my posts who are usually used to seeing me even-tempered and good-humored. This topic just brought up two of the things I detest the most: (1) being photographed without having a chance to get out of it, and (2) smartphones.

Wow. Well said.

It's only well said if you agree with the premise that everyone is looking at their smartphones these days and there's no street life anymore outside of people looking at their phones. I think that's a false premise: people who've wanted distractions have had them for a number of years (newspapers, books,etc.) and we have still had more street life than "people looking at their newspaper." While the smartphone may have more to look at, there's still plenty of street life to be found and photograph, even with prevalent smartphones.

As but one example, here's some photos of "street life" from the Minnesota State Fair Midway. There's even *gasp* phones in some of the photos! And yet there's still photos of varied and interesting street life, both with and without a phone.

 

[PVD]

Humans of NY a book of street photography spent around 7 months on the NYT Bestsellers List. Yes, it has been followed up on social media with a huge following, but the original (very successful concept) was good old street photography.

 

[BCL]

Humans of NY a book of street photography spent around 7 months on the NYT Bestsellers List. Yes, it has been followed up on social media with a huge following, but the original (very successful concept) was good old street photography.

There was The Americans by Robert Frank. Some

However, if I'm taking photos of my family while on the train, I'm not really going to worry about it. I generally don't publish photos of them anyways and only distribute them to people I know. I worry about that as much as I worry about accidentally photographing people at Disneyland.

I would never intentionally take a photo of someone as a specific subject without permission.

 

[Sauve850]

This may take care of itself.

If "Street photography is about documenting life around you," then you will end up with picture after picture of the same thing, because they will all be pictures of morons staring at their phones. There is no "life" as such anymore to photograph--just crowds of people addicted to their phones--so I would assume there will be no need to document it after about the 500th photograph of the same thing.

That's the main reason I said most trains have more personality than many people--a train has a life and a personality, the phone-addicted person does not.

My apologies to regular readers of my posts who are usually used to seeing me even-tempered and good-humored. This topic just brought up two of the things I detest the most: (1) being photographed without having a chance to get out of it, and (2) smartphones.

Wow. Well said.

It's only well said if you agree with the premise that everyone is looking at their smartphones these days and there's no street life anymore outside of people looking at their phones. I think that's a false premise: people who've wanted distractions have had them for a number of years (newspapers, books,etc.) and we have still had more street life than "people looking at their newspaper." While the smartphone may have more to look at, there's still plenty of street life to be found and photograph, even with prevalent smartphones.

As but one example, here's some photos of "street life" from the Minnesota State Fair Midway. There's even *gasp* phones in some of the photos! And yet there's still photos of varied and interesting street life, both with and without a phone.

 

[caravanman]

I think the topic has been well covered now. Big surprise, some folk don't mind, some folk are very against it.

At the end of the day, Photoggirl, you have to decide what to do, or not...

Ed.

 

[Gracious Traveler]

I wonder if everyone is aware that publishing (in any media) a recognizable image of anyone without that person signing a legal release document is legally liable. These forms are standard. Ever notice those photos with faces removed? That's the reason. If someone photographs me and I see it on FB or a blog or article or book without my having signed a release they are liable.

And please remember that taking photos of the Amish Mennonites is against their deeply held religious heritage.

 

[PVD]

see post 17

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

The mention of the Amish above raises an interesting question--they take trains often, and they are in full view of everyone in coach or in the lounge--how do they avoid getting in the photo of a random photographer? I wonder if they have a way of dealing with this, especially the sneaky photographers with the long-distance lenses--it would be interesting to know (plus helpful to the rest of us who want to avoid the photographer!).

 

[AmtrakBlue]

The mention of the Amish above raises an interesting question--they take trains often, and they are in full view of everyone in coach or in the lounge--how do they avoid getting in the photo of a random photographer? I wonder if they have a way of dealing with this, especially the sneaky photographers with the long-distance lenses--it would be interesting to know (plus helpful to the rest of us who want to avoid the photographer!).

I’m sure they’re aware that people are taking pics of them - I’m sure it happens in Lancaster County all the time. Just don’t get close to them to take their picture without asking first.

 

[cpotisch]

I wonder if everyone is aware that publishing (in any media) a recognizable image of anyone without that person signing a legal release document is legally liable. These forms are standard. Ever notice those photos with faces removed? That's the reason. If someone photographs me and I see it on FB or a blog or article or book without my having signed a release they are liable.

And please remember that taking photos of the Amish Mennonites is against their deeply held religious heritage.

Taking and posting a photo of someone without their consent is actual legal. Whether or not the subject is okay with it is another matter.

 

[PVD]

That depends on the nature and purpose of the post, and in addition, certain jurisdictions have additional rules for minors. It is also important to note that if it is from a location where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, like a bathroom or fitting room, it is not legal pretty much everywhere in this country.

 

[Ryan]

I wonder if everyone is aware that publishing (in any media) a recognizable image of anyone without that person signing a legal release document is legally liable. These forms are standard. Ever notice those photos with faces removed? That's the reason. If someone photographs me and I see it on FB or a blog or article or book without my having signed a release they are liable.

Legally liable for what?

Do you legitimately believe that every single person that has their picture in the newspaper has signed a form granting the newspaper permission to do so?

 

[PVD]

News is the most common exception to rules about use of images.

 

[BCL]

The mention of the Amish above raises an interesting question--they take trains often, and they are in full view of everyone in coach or in the lounge--how do they avoid getting in the photo of a random photographer? I wonder if they have a way of dealing with this, especially the sneaky photographers with the long-distance lenses--it would be interesting to know (plus helpful to the rest of us who want to avoid the photographer!).

The Amish and Mennonites aren't necessarily monolithic in their beliefs. Most apparently won't "pose" for a photograph since it would be considered "prideful". Others will avoid it while some will say it's OK as long as it's in a natural position. Many Amish have been interviewed. I remember reading about a couple of Amish volunteer firefighters in Ohio who fought to keep their positions. They wore beards and there were concerns over the quality of the seal of their firefighting masks. Obviously they had no issue with the technology. They actually posed for a photograph for that article.

I've heard of some Amish who have traveled overseas on US passports, and obviously the State Department doesn't exempt anyone from their photo requirements.

 

[PVD]

The firefighter one is pretty common, there is a recently filed lawsuit against FDNY regarding facial hair standards and the ability to comply or not comply with the OSHA standard. I had a respirator fit test done post 9-11 so I could be properly garbed to enter a building in the "hot zone", to see if their communications systems were salvageable, no facial hair was our standard.Nobody complained. NYPD has developed alternate hats for Sikh officers in certain positions.

 

[Ryan]

News is the most common exception to rules about use of images.

I’m aware of that, I’m not sure that our guest does. His blanket statement was pretty all-encompassing.